| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Terry L. Placek | Member | ||
| Mr. Robert Duecaster | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable and that he be advised of his benefit entitlements.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant offers no evidence or argument in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in St. Louis, Missouri, on 5 August 1980, for a period of 3 years, training as an infantryman and assignment to Fort Carson, Colorado. He successfully completed his training, was transferred to Fort Carson on 25 November 1980 and was advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 5 February 1981.
On 30 June 1981, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 90 days) and extra duty.
On 10 August 1982, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 (suspended for 90 days), extra duty and restriction.
On 19 October 1982, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 90 days), restriction and extra duty.
On 27 October 1982, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was deemed to be mentally responsible.
On 3 November 1982, the applicant's commander informed him that he was initiating a recommendation to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant's disciplinary record, his failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions and rehabilitation attempts by the chain of command, his failure to pay his debts, and his overall poor performance and attitude.
After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 4 January 1983 and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 14 January 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. He had served 2 years, 5 months and 10 days of total active service.
There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
The Veterans Administration (Renamed the Department of Veterans Affairs in 1989) was created by Executive Order 5398 dated 21 July 1930, to provide Federal benefits to veterans and their dependents. It is the second largest of the 14 Cabinet departments and operates nationwide programs of health care, financial assistance and national cemeteries.
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsatisfactory performance and who were unsuitable for further military service. An individual could be separated for unsatisfactory performance if it was determined that the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. Although an honorable or general discharge may be issued, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.
3. The Board has reviewed the applicant’s records and finds that there are no mitigating factors to warrant an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant's service clearly does not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge.
4. In regards to the applicant's request to be advised of his benefit entitlements, the Department of Veterans Affairs administers veterans benefits and the Board has no jurisdiction over that agency. Accordingly, the applicant should seek information from that agency.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__tlp____ __rld____ ___rvo __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002081199 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/04/24 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1983/01/14 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | UNSAT PERF |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 730 | 144.7800/A78.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063346C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The convening authority approved the sentence on 29 April 1983; however, he set aside the portion of the sentence pertaining to the forfeiture of pay on 9 May 1983. On 17 October 1983, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, based on his disciplinary record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066394C070402
The board recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 13 May 1983 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service during his current enlistment which included one nonjudicial punishment for possession of marijuana, 11...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014083C071029
The evidence of record shows that on 21 December 1982, his unit commander notified the applicant that he was recommending that he be discharged from the Army under the provision of Army Regulation (AR) 635- 200, chapter 14, for misconduct. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge, in the rank and pay grade of Private, E-1, on 11 February 1983. The evidence shows that in addition to the court-martial...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015236
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 May 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060015236 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. A DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 22 March 1982, states that the punishment of reduction to E-1 suspended for 90 days, imposed on 12 June 1981, was set aside. Records show the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071033C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 February 1983 and on 24 March 1983, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer. However, pursuant to his plea agreement, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence of 45 days confinement at hard labor and a forfeiture of pay.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009131C070205
Jeffrey Redmann | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant was discharged on 12 January 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant’s service record shows he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 on five separate occasions and a bar to reenlistment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003490
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 12 October 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, due to alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. On 12 December 1996, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090073C070212
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge on 31 March 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. At the time of the applicant's separation an honorable or general discharge was authorized.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003564
BOARD DATE: 19 September 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070003564 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant was advised that his bad conduct discharge would be automatically upgraded six months...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088454C070403
Eloise C. PrendergastMember The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board. There is no evidence that he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application...